ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2014
Age at first birth and melanoma risk: a meta-analysis.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Age at first birth, age at menopause, and risk of ovarian cyst: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Age at first birth has been shown to be correlated with melanoma risk, but the results were inconsistent. Thus, a meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate the relationship between age at first birth and melanoma risk. Studies published up to September 6, 2014 were identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE databases. Random-effect model was used to pool the study-specific risk estimates (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Three case-control, three nested case-control, and five cohort studies were found to be eligible. In a comparison of the oldest versus youngest age at first birth, the pooled RR for melanoma risk was 1.47 (95% CI: 1.07-2.02) in all studies, 1.37 (95% CI: 0.47-4.02) in population-based case-control studies, 2.69 (95% CI: 1.56-4.64) in hospital case-control studies, 1.38 (95% CI: 0.66-2.88) in nested case-control studies, and 1.39 (95% CI: 0.89-2.17) in cohort studies. In the subgroup analysis according to sites where studies were performed, the pooled RR was 1.44 (95% CI: 0.99-2.08), 1.18 (95% CI: 0.30-4.60), and 2.36 (95% CI: 1.42-3.93) for Europe, Americas, and Australia, respectively. In the subgroup stratified by whether the included study provided adjustment for specific potential confounders or important risk factors, the relationship between age at first birth and melanoma risk was significantly modified by age, naevi/pigmentation, sunlight exposure, and hair colour. This meta-analysis based on available observational data reveals that age at first birth is positively associated with melanoma risk. However, this finding should be interpreted cautiously, as residual confounding cannot be excluded. More investigations with well-designed are warranted to extend this finding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25664022PMC4307469What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.